^$44/ 

*1 

THE  MIAMI  BULLETIN 


Series  V. 

January  1907. 

Number  11 

(Published  monthly  by 

Miami  University  and  entered  at  the 
Ohio,  as  second-class  mail  matter.) 

Post-office,  Oxford, 

AIMS  OF  THE  STUDY  OF  LATIN  AND  GREEK  IN  THE 

HIGH  SCHOOL, 

A recent  writer  in  the  New  York  Latin  Leaflet  (Brooklyn, 
Nov.  19,  1906)  makes  a helpful  contribution  to  this  much  vexed 
discussion  by  frankly  recognizing  that  there  are  several  more  or 
less  distinct  ends  which  the  study  of  Latin  in  our  secondary 
schools  subserves.  The  fact  that  different  advocates  of  the 
classics  emphasize,  some  one,  some  another,  of  the  reasons  for 
studying  Latin  is  sometimes  treated  as  evidence  that  no  valid 
and  satisfactory  reason  for  the  study  exists — a kind  of  logic 
which  should  find  favor  only  with  those  who  are  wedded  to  cut- 
and-dried  formulas  and  convenient  catchwords  in  the  domain  of 
educational  discussion. 

After  enumerating  some  of  the  chief  uses  which  are  claimed 
for  Latin,  the  writer  just  referred  to  observes:  “But  after  alb  it 
is  by  no  means  indispensable  that  we  come  to  an  exact  agree- 
ment on  this  point,  [i.  e.  as  to  the  pre-eminent  use  of  latin]. 
So  long  as  Latin  study  does  any  one  of  the  above  things  thor- 
oughly well  and  better  than  does  any  other  study,  it  will  retain, 
and  rightly,  a place  in  our  scheme  of  education.  If  it  can  do 
two  or  more  of  them  thoroughly  well,  so  much  the  stronger  its 
position.”  This  sounds,  to  one  reader  at  least,  like  a common- 
sense  view  of  the  matter.  But  the  author  is  also  right  in 
insisting  that,  in  order  to  make  the  subject  yield  its  legitimate 
fruits,  the  teacher  must  realize  clearly  what  the  most  useful 
results  of  Latin  study  are,  decide  which  of  them  are  most  at- 
tainable in  the  several  classes  which  he  has  to  teach,  and  then 
shape  his  work  consciously  and  intelligently  toward  securing 
these  results.  Definiteness  of  aim  we  must  have,  whether  our 
weapon  be  a single-barreled  one  or  a six-shooter. 


/ 


The  purpose  of  the  present  writer  is  to  stimulate  to  fresh 
thinking  along  these  lines  by  suggesting  what  seem  to  him 
some  of  the  ends  most  worth  striving  for  in  the  teaching  of 
Latin  in  High  Schools;  and  incidentally,  what  attitude  the 
teacher  may  reasonably  take  with  regard  to  the  question  of 
teaching  the  subject  at  all. 

i.  The  first  service  of  a study  of  Latin  to  the  mind  of  the 
young  student  to  which  I would  direct  attention  is  one  which 
the  beginner  himself,  as  well  as  the  older  person  who  has  no 
knowledge  of  the  language,  is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  least 
likely  to  appreciate.  But  it  is  the  one  which,  I believe,  the  man 
of  mature  mind,  reviewing  the  question  of  what  a rigid  linguistic 
training  has  done  for  him,  generally  thinks  of  first.  I mean  the 
training  in  analyzing  the  fundamental  thought-relations  as  ex- 
pressed in  language.  One  awakens  most  fully  to  consciousness 
of  these  thought-relations  when  he  is  compelled,  as  in  learning  a 
foreign  language,  to  abstract  them  from  the  form,  to  recognize 
them  in  their  essence,  in  order  to  reproduce  them  in  other  forms. 
The  more  the  foreign  language  differs  in  structure  from  his  own 
the  better.  The  more  highly  inflected  it  is,  the  better.  Latin 
differing  widely  from  English,  requires  the  student  to  so  analyze 
and  grasp  the  relations  of  the  thought  with  which  he  deals  that 
he  can  recognize  them  under,  or  reproduce  them  into,  these 
quite  different  forms  of  expression;  and  not  only  different,  but 
more  concise  and  condensed  forms.  That  is,  he  must  recognize 
them  by  a slighter  external  indication;  he  does  not  have  them 
spelled  out  large,  so  to  speak,  by  the  use  of  several  words,  but  is 
dependent  on  a mere  inflectional  change;  he  must  have  the 
relation  so  clearly  held  in  mind  that  a single  inconspicuous  label 
shall  suffice  to  call  it  up,  quickly  and  surely,  before  him.  This 
is  a very  different  thing  from  simply  having  to  replace  the  words 
of  one  language  by  the  words  of  another,  with  little  difference  of 
structure.  While  the  close  observation  of  forms  trains  the  mind 
for  scientific  studies,  the  close  analysis  of  thought  quickens  the 
faculties  requisite  for  philosophical  studies.  Perhaps  the  best 
thing  which  a thorough  study  of  Latin  gives  the  student  is  the 
ability  to  read  intelligently  in  any  language — not  to  “skim”  and 
carry  away  the  more  or  less  disconnected  ideas  which  separate 
words  and  phrases  suggest,  but  to  grasp  the  organization  of  the 
thought  as  a whole  by  a process  of  observation  and  conscious 
analysis.  This  is  the  power  which  the  lawyer  or  legislator 


needs  in  interpreting  the  terms  of  a statute,  the  preacher  in  ex- 
pounding a text,  the  man  of  business  in  understanding  a con- 
tract, the  advanced  student  in  following  a scientific  or  philoso- 
phical discussion,  the  serious  reader  in  any  sphere  of  language 
above  the  simplest. 

2.  A second  advantage  to  be  expected  and  aimed  at  is  a 
more  obvious  one  and  one  almost  universally  recognized, — viz.,  the 
help  given  by  a knowledge  of  the  Latin  vocabulary  toward  an 
understanding  of  English  derivatives.  A large  part  of  our  words 
are  of  Latin  origin,  and  this  the  less  familiar  part,  the  more 
abstract  part,  the  words  which  especially  need  defining.  A 
knowledge  of  Latin  saves  looking  up  and  learning  definitions. 
And  the  mere  dictionary  definition  will  never  give  the  accurate 
notion  which  he  has  who  has  met  the  word  in  its  context,  knows 
its  various  shades  of  meaning,  its  historical  associations  and 
connotations.  Many  words  represent  ideas  which  are  distinct- 
ively Roman  and  can  only  be  carried  away  by  one  who  has 
been  in  contact  with  the  Roman  mind  in  its  literature,  has 
breathed  the  Roman  atmosphere. 

The  gain  in  knowledge  of  English  derivaties  is  not  measured 
by  the  number  of  separate  Latin  words  the  boy  knows.  Single 
roots  become  the  parents  of  whole  families  of  English  words. 
The  student  who  knows  one  of  these  roots  in  the  several  forms 
which  roots  often  assume  in  Latin,  and  who  knows  the  value  of 
the  prefixes  and  suffixes  commonly  employed  in  the  parent  speech, 
often  commands  at  a glance  the  meaning  of  a half-dozen  words 
in  English  which  the  student  without  Latin  has  to  look  up,  as 
so  many  different  words,  in  a dictionary. 

3.  I would  place  next  the  opportunity  which  the  practice 
of  translation  from  Latin  and  Greek  affords  for  training  in 
English.  By  translation,  I do  not,  of  course,  mean  the  same 
thing  as  reading.  Reading  is  mental  interpretation;  and  as  the 
student  gains  command  of  the  facts  and  laws  of  the  language  he 
should  be  encouraged  to  read  directly — to  let  the  language  speak 
immediately  to  his  mind,  as  it  did  to  the  original  hearer  or  reader, 
without  any  intervening  medium.  Nor  do  I refer  here  to  that 
somewhat  bald  and  literal  rendering  of  a Latin  or  Greek  con- 
struction by  the  construction  most  closely  analogous  in  English 
which  the  teacher  may  require,  especially  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
the  study,  as  a practical  way  of  keeping  track  of  the  analytical 
processes  of  his  pupil — as  a guarantee  that  he  has  correct  data 


of  interpretation  and  a safeguard  against  mere  guesses,  more  or 
less  happy,  at  the  meaning.  By  translation,  in  this  place,  I 
mean  a superadded  discipline,  a distinctly  literary  exercise,  in 
which  we  attempt  to  convey,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  thought, 
form,  and  total  effect  of  a Latin  passage  through  the  medium  of 
English.  Such  translation  is,  like  that  spoken  of  above,  a test 
of  knowledge  of  the  original.  But  it  is  also  a test  of  the  student’s 
power  of  expression,  his  command  of  resources,  in  English;  and 
much  more  than  a test — it  is  a highly  effective  means  of  develop- 
ing that  power  and  enlarging  those  resources.  When  the 
student  attacks  this  problem,  it  means  that,  for  his  Latin  word, 
he  must  marshal  the  possible  more  or  less  exact  equivalents 
which  English  affords  and  choose  from  these  the  one  which 
most  nearly  hits  the  conception.  In  like  manner,  in  order  to 
render  the  force  of  the  Latin  construction,  he  must  think  of  the 
approximately  equivalent  constructions  and  choose  the  one  which 
would  be  most  likely  to  be  used  in  that  place  by  a writer  of 
natural  and  idiomatic  English.  And  in  all  this  he  must  seek  to 
convey  correctly  not  only  the  exact  meaning,  but  the  general 
effect — the  emotional  and  aesthetic  elements,  as  well  as  those 
which  appeal  directly  to  the  understanding.  In  essaying  this 
task,  under  competent  guidance,  he  will  develop  exactness,  taste, 
and  judgment  in  the  use  of  English  and  will  catch  some  notion 
of  what  that  elusive  and  indefinable  thing  is  which  we  call  style. 
Of  course,  translation  from  any  language  will  serve  these  ends  to 
a degree,  but  the  advantages  will  be  greatest  in  translating  from 
languages,  like  Latin  and  Greek,  which  seek  to  express  by  form 
the  most  subtle  distinctions,  and  whose  forms  of  expression 
differ  most  widely  from  our  own.  And  not  the  least  of  the 
benefits  reaped  from  the  study  will  be  the  clear  perception  arrived 
at  of  the  impossibility  of  absolute  translation  and  the  immense 
importance  of  reading  a literature  in  the  original. 

4.  This  brings  us  naturally  to  our  fourth  point.  The  crown- 
ing  good  of  a knowledge  of  Latin  and  Greek  lies,  of  course,  in 
the  first-hand  acquaintance  afforded  with  the  immortal  literatures 
embodied  in  these  languages.  It  is  needless  to  repeat  here  what 
every  intelligent  person  knows.  Modern  thought,  modern 
civilization,  modern  literature  are  rooted  deep  in  the  soil  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  We  are  largely  what  the  past  has  made  us. 
To  seek  to  comprehend  the  present  with  the  door  of  the  past 
barred  behind  us  is  to  work  in  the  dark  and  narrow  hopelessly 


our  field  of  vision.  No  recognition  of  new  factors  that  have 
arisen,  no  pressing  of  the  claims,  however  deserving,  of  modern 
literatures,  can  alter  the  plain  facts  of  history.  Nothing  has  hap- 
pened, nothing  can  happen,  to  weaken  the  claim  of  the  classics. 
Some  sort  of  acquaintance  with  the  Latin  and  Greek  literature  every 
cultured  man  or  woman  must  have,  to-day  as  always.  The  only 
question  is,  shall  it  be  a first-hand  or  a second  or  third  hand 
acquaintance  ? Why  a first  hand  acquaintance  is  vastly  prefer- 
able has  been  partly  suggested  above.  In  the  best  translation 
something,  even  of  the  essential  meaning,  is  lost;  of  the  form, 
immeasurably  more.  And  the  mere  element  of  time  and  atten- 
tion counts  for  something.  The  average  person  who  reads  a 
classic  in  translation,  apart  from  the  specialist  with  a keen  interest 
in  some  particular  subject,  is  not  likely  to  carry  away  so  deep  an 
impression  of  its  content,  to  have  it  so  fixed  in  his  memory,  as  he 
who  has  lingered  long  over  it  in  the  effort  to  extract  the  meaning 
from  the  original.  Reading  the  ancient  classics  in  translation  is 
highly  desirable  for  those  to  whom  nothing  better  is  possible;  it 
is  not  an  ideal  with  which  one  who  has  enjoyed  opportunities  for 
a liberal  culture  in  his  early  years  should  rest  content. 

Recognizing  thus  fully  that  an  acquaintance  with  classic 
authors  is  the  richest  fruit  of  classical  studies,  I have 
yet  chosen  to  rest  my  argument  for  Latin  chiefly  on  the  in- 
cidental advantages  enumerated  above — on  what  have  been 
happily  called  “the  by-products”  of  the  study  of  Latin. 

I have  done  this  because  I am  speaking  primarily  to  high 
school  teachers,  because  I wish  to  recognize  fully  existing  con- 
ditions, and  to  give  advice  that  can  reasonably  be  followed.  We 
have  to  face  the  fact  that,  with  the  claims  of  new  and  important 
studies  and  the  introduction  of  the  elective  principle  into  college 
curricula,  a far  smaller  number  than  formerly  of  our  students  who 
go  to  college  will  carry  on  their  Greek  and  Latin  studies  there. 
For  those  who  do  not,  acquaintance  with  classic  literature  will 
probably,  though  by  no  means  necessarily,  be  limited  to  the 
portions  read  in  the  high  school.  And  these  portions,  say  many 
critics  of  these  studies,  are  so  small  as  to  be  not  worth  considering 
as  a study  of  literature.  Lamentably  small  they  indeed  are. 
Even  so,  I am  not  at  all  sure  that  their  worthlessness  as  a 
literary  study  should  be  so  readily  assumed.  There  is  a good 
deal  of  wisdom  underlying  the  old  adage  “Fear  the  man  of  one 
book.”  There  are  many  men  now  living  who  believe  that  a 


close  study  of  a few  orations  of  Cicero,  a few  books  of  Vergil, 
Xenophon,  or  Homer  have  been  worth  to  them  all  the  labor 
spent  in  learning  to  read  Latin  and  Greek.  But,  waiving  this 
point,  there  is  another  question  that  is  worthy  of  serious  con- 
sideration. If  we  may  not  regard  our  pupils  as  actual , ought  we 
not  to  consider  their  interests  as  potential , students  of  classical 
literature?  In  view  of  the  great  importance  of  the  field,  it  would 
seem  reasonable  to  give  high  school  students  the  preliminary 
instruction  which  will  at  least  make  it  possible  for  them  to 
choose  it  when  the  time  for  choice  comes.  We  teach  mathe- 
matics in  the  lower  school,  as  we  should  teach  Latin,  parti}’  for 
the  peculiar  mental  training  it  imparts;  but  we  teach  it  partly 
also,  if  I mistake  not,  because  we  recognize  that  a considerable 
number  of  our  students  will,  in  their  higher  studies  or  life  calling, 
wish  to  pursue  subjects  for  which  mathematics  form  an  indis- 
pensable preparation.  If  the  chance,  so  to  speak,  that  any  given 
student  may  hereafter  elect  a group  of  studies  dependent  on 
mathematics  warrants  us  in  exacting  of  him  a prolonged  pre- 
paratory course  in  that  subject,  why  does  not  the  chance  that  he 
may  decide  to  enter  another  important  sphere  of  studies,  for 
which  Latin  and  Greek  furnish  the  best  preparation,  warrant  us 
in  seeing  to  it  that  he  acquires  at  least  the  elements  of  those 
languages  ? What  fairness  is  there  in  sending  him  up  to  the 
point  where  the  main  avenues  of  learning  diverge  furnished  with 
the  key  which  will  enable  him  to  enter  the  portals  of  the  one, 
deprived  of  the  key  which  is  needful  to  admit  him  to  the  other  ? 

But,  if  we  are  to  abandon  the  theory  of  an  all-round  elementary 
preparation  in  the  great  outstanding  departments;  if  the  elective 
policy,  already  carried  down  from  the  graduate  school  to  the 
college,  is  to  be  pushed  down  into  the  secondary  school;  if  the 
teacher  must  assume  the  responsibility  of  ascertaining  the  apti- 
tudes and  intentions  of  his  pupil  and  shape  his  course  with  a view 
to  helping  on  his  probable  future  studies — what  then  ? The  very 
least  he  can  do  is,  when  he  finds  a pupil  who  seems  destined  for 
professional — in  the  older  and  narrower  sense  of  the  word — 
humanistic,  or  literary  studies,  to  encourage  and  influence  him 
in  every  way  in  his  power  to  undertake  the  study  of  at  least  one 
of  the  ancient  languages. 

As  to  which  of  these  languages  should  be  studied,  where 
only  one  is  considered  possible,  the  question  is  hardly  an  open 
one  under  existing  conditions  Common  practice  has  fixed  on 


Latin  as  the  favored  sister,  and  the  linguistic  preparation  of  the 
teacher  to-day  often  comes  in  to  confirm  the  limitation.  The 
more  practical  question  then,  is  what  are  the  claims  of  Greek  as 
a second  ancient  language  in  our  schools  ? And  this  can  be 
conveniently  answered  by  a comparison  with  those  made  for 
Latin.  As  to  the  advantages  enumerated  above  under  the  first 
and  third  heads — which  are  naturally  closely  related — Greek  and 
Latin  stand  on  much  the  same  footing  though  the  somewhat 
greater  flexibility  of  the  Greek,  and  its  consequent  power  of 
expressing  by  the  form  in  some  instances,  more  exact  shades  of 
relation  in  thought,  give  it  some  points  of  superiority.  It  is  the 
second  consideration  in  the  list,  doubtless — the  far  closer  con- 
tact of  the  Latin  vocabulary  with  that  of  English  which  has 
inclined  the  balance  in  favor  of  Latin  as  a school  study.  Yet  the 
influence  of  Greek  even  on  the  general  vocabulary  of  English  is 
by  no  means  inconsiderable.  And  in  the  technical  vocabulary 
of  certain  departments  of  study  the  Greek  elements  are  more 
important  than  the  Latin. 

In  respect  to  the  fourth  point — the  study  of  the  literature — - 
Greek  as  the  more  original  and,  on  the  whole,  the  more  sig- 
nificant literature,  has  stronger  claims  than  Latin.  Indeed,  it 
would  be  easy  to  show  that  one  can  not  fully  appreciate  the 
Latin  literature  without  an  acquaintance  with  the  Greek.  To 
conclude  then,  with  a word  of  practical  counsel  on  this  point 
also.  I should  say  that,  where  it  is  possible  to  have  a course 
that  will  admit  both  ancient  languages  and  where  a teacher  of 
Greek  is  available,  school  authorities  should  see  to  it  to  the  ex- 
tent of  their  influence,  that  those  students  who  seemed  likely  to 
pursue  literary  or  philosophical  studies  in  their  later  careers — 
and  especially  those  who  plan  to  become  special  students  or 
teachers  of  English  literature— take  a thorough  preparatory 
course  in  Greek,  and  for  those  who  propose  to  work  in  certain 
technical  lines  whose  vocabulary  draws  largely  on  Greek,  a 
briefer  course  in  the  language  should  be  strongly  advised. 

In  view  of  the  great  value  of  the  study  to  these  groups  of 
students,  a liberal  attitude  might  well  be  taken  in  the  matter  of 
allowing  Greek  to  be  given  even  to  very  small  classes.  The 
number  of  applicants  required  in  order  to  justify  the  formation 
of  a class  in  Greek  in  many  schools  is  now  so  high  as  practically 
to  exclude  the  study. 


William  A.  Eckels.. 


MODERN  FOREIGN  LANGUAGES  IN  THE  HIGH  SCHOOL. 


The  day  when  every  student  in  the  high  school,  whatever 
his  taste,  capacity  or  discretion,  must  study  Latin,  for  a larger  or 
shorter  period  is  happily  past  in  most  schools,  and  will  soon  be 
past  in  the  few  that  still  cling  to  the  tradition.  Teachers,  how- 
ever, feel,  some  instinctively,  and  others  as  a result  of  careful 
observation  and  pedagogic  inference,  that  the  pupil  who  finishes 
his  high  school  career  without  the  study  of  a foreign  language 
has  missed  one  of  the  best  features  of  the  course.  To  say  nothing 
of  the  linguistic  training  incident  to  the  study  of  a lan- 
guage other  than  the  mother  tongue,  the  so-called  English  or 
scientific  course  is  not  well  balanced.  There  is  nothing  really 
new  or  engaging  on  the  humanistic  side.  Different  subjects  in 
mathematics  and  different  sciences  open  new  vistas  in  those  di- 
rections, but  English  is  regarded  by  the  pupil  as  the  same  time 
worn  subject  that  he  pursued  in  the  grades,  and  history,  although 
it  be  general  or  English  history,  is  but  a continuation  of  a branch 
already  begun. 

Something  must  always  be  substituted  for  the  Latin  in  such 
a course  that  will  fill  out  the  curriculum  on  the  side  of  the 
humanities.  No  other  subject  so  well  fills  the  gap  as  a modern, 
foreign  language.  It  preserves  the  due  balance  between  the 
■scientific  and  the  humanistic  studies;  it  affords  real  linguistic 
training,  and  is  distinctly  a high  school  branch.  Furthermore, 
it  raises  the  English  or  scientific  course  in  the  estimation  of  both 
patrons  and  pupils  to  an  equality  with  the  classical.  If  the  force 
of  example  lends  strength  to  the  argument,  it  might  be  added 
that  such  a curriculum  is  in  close  conformity  with  the  last  evolu- 
tion in  European  secondary  education,  where  the  two  curricula 
run  side  by  side;  where  the  “classical  education”  and  the  ‘‘mod- 
ern education”  are  parallel  and  afford  the  pupil  the  same  rank 
and  dignity. 

These  ideas  are  but  axioms  to  those  who  have  kept  apace 
with  educational  science,  and  they  have  already  been  incorporated 
into  the  courses  of  study  in  the  best  high  schools.  But  some- 
thing else  remains  to  be  said,  which  is.  perhaps,  not  so  widely 
disseminated,  and,  where  known,  is  not  so  strongly  believed. 


Judging  from  the  most  recent  type  of  text  books,  and  from  the 
results  obtained  in  many  schools  counted  among  the  best,  modern 
language  teaching  in  the  United  States  is  far  inferior  to  that  of 
continental  Europe,  and,  in  fact,  varies  little  in  methods  of  in- 
struction from  the  dead  languages.  A grammar-dictionary-trans- 
lation system  of  teaching  a living  tongue  is  certainly  out  of 
place  anywhere,  but  especially  so  in  a high  school,  and  with 
pupils  of  that  age.  The  enthusiasm  that  such  a study  should 
awaken  is,  by  dead  methods,  either  largely  or  wholly  destroyed. 
The  linguistic  training  is  narrowed  to  simple  grammatical  training, 
and  the  pupil,  never  attaining  the  ability  to  do  aught  but  trans- 
late, misses  the  beauty  of  the  diction,  and  fails  to  comprehend 
the  humor  or  the  pathos  or  the  inspiration  of  the  original.  He 
does  not  get  the  best  linguistic  training  the  study  affords  and  the 
literary  training  is  practically  nil. 

When  the  possibilities,  advantages  and  adaptibility  of  the 
modern  languages  for  high  schools  are  so  apparent  one  is  tempted 
to  inquire  why  the  methods  are  uniformly  so  antiquated  in  this 
day  when  methods  are  receiving  so  much  attention. 

It  is  not  always  because  the  teachers  do  not  know  in  a 
living  way  the  tongues  they  teach.  Many  who  read  and  speak 
a language  with  ease  teach  only  by  grammar,  vocabulary  and 
translation.  Even  many  foreign  born  teachers  who  learned 
English  in  a practical  way  and  would  spurn  set  transla- 
tion for  themselves,  practice  no  other  method  in  the  class  room. 

It  is  not  because  teachers  are  satisfied  with  present  results. 
All  with  one  accord  will  admit,  no  matter  what  their  successs  in 
preparing  pupils  for  college  entrance  or  other  school  examina- 
tions, that  after  all  the  hard  study  of  the  faithful 
pupil,  it  is  a pity  that  he  cannot  read  a simple  page  without  the 
use  of  a dictionary,  or  understand  the  thought  without  stating  it 
orally  or  mentally  in  his  mother  tongue;  thus  losing  the  charm 
of  the  imagery  and  the  beauty  of  the  expression. 

One  reason  for  the  present  unpedagogic  methods  is  tradition- 
Ancient  foreign  languages  have  been  taught  for  generations  by 
the  grammar-dictionary-translation  process,  and  the  same  methods 
have  been  unconsciously  adapted  to  the  modern  living  tongues. 

Another  reason,  undoubtedly,  is  that  teachers  who  have  ac- 
quired a translating  knowledge  only  of  a foreign  tongue  honestly 
doubt  if  anything  more  can  be  acquired  in  the  length  of  time 
given  to  the  language  in,  the  school  curriculum,  and  therefore 


argue  that  all  the  time  and  all  the  exercises  should  tend  to  that 
end  and  to  that  alone. 

Other  teachers,  despairing  of  achieving  any  real  results  by 
their  traditional  type  of  instruction  have  fallen  back  upon  the  com- 
forting but  delusive  notion  that  the  great  aim  of  foreign  language 
teaching  is  merely  disciplinary,  and  imagine  that  any  variation 
from  the  grammar  and  translation  process  will  impair  the  value 
of  the  study  as  a mental  training. 

Others  still,  who  know,  appreciate  and  can  use  the  language 
fluently,  while  they  think  it  would  be  advantageous  for  the  pupils 
to  acquire  a practical  command  of  it  and  will  admit  that  such 
a result  can  be  obtained  through  private  instruction,  do  not 
believe  that  any  appreciable  results  of  that  nature  can  be  ob- 
tained in  the  classroom. 

Another  class  of  teachers  have  seen,  have  even  perhaps  been 
the  victims  of  the  travelling  “Professor”  who  advertizes  “Ger- 
man in  two  weeks,”  “French  in  ten  lessons,”  and,  being  natural- 
ly disgusted  with  such  quackery,  have  refused  to  investigate 
any  and  all  methods,  no  matter  how  reasonable  or  how  scien- 
tific, that  purpose  to  give  a practical  knowlege  of  a foreign 
language  and  at  the  same  time  preserve  its  dignity  and  influence 
as  a branch  of  scholastic  training. 

No  one  of  these  reasons  is  any  longer  an  adequate  excuse 
for  irrational,  unpedagogic  teaching  of  modern  languages  in  the 
high  school.  Even  tradition,  the  strongest,  notwithstanding  that 
it  is  least  reasonable,  argument  no  longer  holds.  Changes  here 
come  rapidly.  Only  a decade  ago  the  “Committee  of  Twelve/’ 
composed  of  leading  college  professors,  published  a report,  which, 
although  presumably  neutral  in  the  matter  of  method  was  neverthe- 
less strongly  reactionary,  and  gave  much  comfort  to  the  adherents 
of  old-time  ideas.  Many  of  those  same  professors  have  since 
come  to  advocate  striking  reforms.  In  the  institutions  of  higher 
education  to  which  high  school  teachers  naturally  look  for  ideals 
there  has  come  a new  light.  The  University  of  Chicago  has 
adopted  living  methods  of  teaching  modern  languages,  and 
Harvard  offers  to  the  student  a choice  between  a translation 
method  and  an  oral,  practical  method.  These  two  leading  insti- 
tutions are  mentioned  by  name  only  as  examples.  It  is  safe  to 
say  that  there  is  scarcely  a college  in  the  land  in  which  some  ef- 
fort is  not  made  to  give  a practical  turn  to  the  teaching  of  mod- 
ern languages,  although  it  must  be  confessed  tha&  the  concession 


is  too  often  merely  on  the  surface.  However,  even  that  much 
shows  the  drift  of  thought. 

The  forward  movement  in  American  colleges  came  in  the 
wake  of  a similar  movement  in  continental  Europe.  In  the  late 
Eighties  and  early  Nineties  an  agitation  began  in  European  sec- 
ondary schools  for  a reformed  course  of  study.  The  struggle  cen- 
tered about  the  position  of  the  modern  languages  in  the  curricu- 
lum and  the  manner  of  teaching  them.  The  agitation  gained 
strength  with  every  discussion.  The  principles  advocated  were 
founded  on  pedagogic  axioms.  Since  that  time  there  has  been  a 
reconstruction  of  the  secondary  schools  throughout  nearly  all 
Europe  and  the  instruction  in  modern  languages  by  living, 
rational  and  practical  methods  has  become  the  accepted  principle. 

Since  this  revolution  in  traditionary  Europe  the  high  school 
teachers  of  America  need  not  fear  to  cut  loose  from  a system  that 
their  good  sense  has  long  told  them  was  irrational  and  their  ex- 
perience has  shown  to  be  barren  of  results.  It  is  a safe  predic- 
tion that  they  will  be  only  too  eager  to  make  the  change.  It 
only  remains  to  make  them  acquainted  with  the  better  ways,  and 
for  the  publishers  to  provide  the  proper  apparatus  to  do  the 
work  according  to  the  new  ideas.  The  reformed  method  (or 
methods,  for  as  there  is  only  one  principle  back  of  the  movement, 
there  are  numberless  systems  and  devices  for  working  out  the 
principle)  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  quackery  of  the 
“travelling  professor.”  It  is  simple,  rational,  pedagogic,  viz:  the 
language  itself  taught,  not  translated;  the  ability  on  the  part  of 
the  pupil  to  understand  and  to  read  in  the  original  without  trans- 
fering  the  ideas  into  words  of  the  mother  tongue,  also  the  ability 
to  use  the  language  with  a reasonable  degree  of  correctness  in 
speaking  and  writing. 

Such  a result  can  be  obtained  in  classes  of  ordinary  size. 
Private  instruction  is  no  more  advantageous  in  this  branch  than 
in  any  other.  It  might  easily  be  maintained  that  numbers  within 
limits  were  an  advantage,  as  they  provide  useful  emulation  and 
variety. 

Teaching  a modern  language  merely  for  the  mental  gymnas- 
tics it  provides  has  no  place  in  the  school  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury, and  the  teacher  of  modern  language  who  advances  such  an 
argument  is  either  incapable  of  teaching  well  or  too  indolent  to 
keep  abreast  of  the  latest  thought  in  his  profession. 

The  duty  of  preparing  pupils  for  college  entrance  and  other 


3 0 


12  105657529 


examinations  where  modern  ideas  have  not  yet  made  their  way 
is  no  adequate  reason  for  clinging  to  worn-out  methods.  Pupils 
prepared  in  - the  new  way  will  acquire  in  the  same  time,  and  in 
addition *to  a practical  grasp  of  the  language,  the  ability  to  parse 
sentences,  indicate  word  formations  and  translate  paragraphs. 

Tfce  reform  in  modern  language  instruction  is  not  an  isolated 
movement.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  world  wide.  It  is  not  based 
on  the  deductions  of  obscure  teachers  or  men  of  narrow  views. 
It  is  backed  by  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  age  and  forwarded  by 
the  leaders  in  educational  science.  Teachers  who  doubt  the 
wisdom  of  the  reform  or  its  abundant  advantages,  or  those  who, 
in  an  open  and  inquiring  mind,  would  know  how  to  accomplish 
what  has  long  been  their  ideal,  but  which  they  have  thought  im- 
possible, should  consult  the  bibliography  of  the  subject.  (A  short 
list  of  the  works  most  easily  accessible  to  the  American  teacher 
is  given  at  the  end  of  this  article.) 

Modern  languages  so  taught  will  occupy  a prominent  place 
in  the  high  school  curricula.  They  will  take  the  place  of  Latin 
for  many  pupils  who  otherwise  would  have  no  foreign  language. 
They  will  be  a valuable  “minor”  to  English,  geography  and  his- 
tory. They  will  be  an  important  means  of  linguistic  training. 
They  will  be  a “practical”  study  in  an  age  when  rightly  or 
wrongly  all  branches  are  measured  by  this  standard.  They  can 
be  all  this  and  more,  if  taught  as  living  languages,  by  living 
methods,  by  teachers  who  know  the  best  methods  that  are  used 
today  and  who  will  strive  for  still  better  ones. 

— Edgar  Ewing  Brandon. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.— 

SwEET — The  Practical  Study  of  Languages. 

JESPERSEN — How  to  Teach  a Foreign  Language. 

Gouin — The  Art  of  Teaching  and  Studying  Languages. 

Bahesen — The  Teaching  of  Modern  Languages. 

Brebner — The  Method  of  Teaching  Modern  Languages 
in  Germany. 

[The  foregoing  articles  were  written  at  the  request  of  the 
editor  of  the  Bulletin,  independently,  and  with  no  thought  of 
controversy,  but  with  the  sole  purpose  of  setting  forth  the  just 
claims  of  these  two  important  groups  of  studies  — A.  G.  H.] 


